I'm a science journalist and author of "Distant Wanderers: the Search for Planets Beyond the Solar System" who writes about over-the-horizon technology, primarily astronomy and space science. I’m a former Hong Kong bureau chief for Aviation Week & Space Technology magazine and former Paris-based technology correspondent for the Financial Times newspaper who has reported from six continents. A 1998 winner in the Royal Aeronautical Society's Aerospace Journalist of the Year Awards (AJOYA), I’ve interviewed Nobel Prize winners and written about everything from potato blight to dark energy. Previously, I was a film and arts correspondent in New York and Europe, primarily for newspaper outlets like the International Herald Tribune, the Boston Globe and Canada's Globe & Mail. Recently, I've contributed to Scientific American.com, Nature News, Physics World, and Yale Environment 360.com. I'm a current contributor to Astronomy and Sky & Telescope and a correspondent for Renewable Energy World. Twitter @bdorminey

Why World War III Could Start In Space

Nearly a century after Robert Goddard launched his first liquid-fuel rocket, we are now inextricably linked to the hundreds of spacecraft which race around our planet at speeds that would make Chuck Yeager envious.

But near-Earth space is reaching a saturation point — a detail driven home in James Clay Moltz’s new space history — Crowded Orbits: Conflict and Cooperation in Space. And the idea that such orbital competition could potentially trigger a global conflict is one of the book’s major themes.

In “Crowded Orbits,” Moltz — an expert on space policy and national security issues — covers the civil, military and commercial space sectors, but also includes chapters on diplomatic space initiatives and future trends. Forbes.com turned to the author, a professor at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, to learn more.

Is space warfare in our future?

If one tracks current trends and the increasing rate of military spending on space by a variety of countries, one has to worry. These militaries are going to have to engage in mutual restraint if conflict is going to be avoided.

The photo shows the “energy flash” when a projectile launched at speeds of up to 17,000 miles an hour impacts a solid surface at the Hypervelocity Ballistic Range at NASA’s Ames Research Center. This test is used to simulate what happens when a piece of orbital debris hits a spacecraft in orbit. (Credit: Wikipedia)

You argue that warfare in earth orbit would create totally uncontrolled projectiles traveling 17,000 mph. What would be the immediate effects?

China’s 2007 ASAT (anti-satellite weapons) test created over 3,000 pieces of large orbital debris (larger than 4 inches in diameter), which will now continue to hurtle around the Earth at orbital speeds (over 17,000 mph) for some 40 or more years; until they finally re-enter the atmosphere and burn up.

Any piece of this debris field could hit a satellite or, worse, a manned spacecraft and cause serious damage, depressurization, and death. A space war involving even just a dozen similar attacks on satellites would create such a large field of hazardous debris that it could render low-Earth orbit too dangerous for astronauts or high-value spacecraft —making near-Earth space essentially unusable.

Does Iran or North Korea possess the technology for space-to-space warfare?

Not yet. The challenge will be whether existing space-faring countries can convince newly-emerging space actors to behave responsibly. One possible [incentive] is that in space, [destructive] acts — such as the release of orbital debris from weapons tests — harm everyone in orbit. So, China, Russia, and other developed space powers share an interest in ensuring safe access to space.

What effect has the 1967 Outer Space Treaty had on deterring an all out arms race in space?

The Outer Space Treaty and other agreements have created strong norms of restraint. A current effort—started by the European Union—to create an International Code of Conduct for Outer Space Activities would enhance cooperation in space situational awareness and traffic control; encourage non-interference and debris mitigation; and require yearly consultations among signatories on space security issues.

Whether these mechanisms will be enough to prevent future space conflict and the possible ruination of critical orbits remains to be seen. There are still loopholes for weapons testing and deployment within existing treaties that could create serious future problems.

You mention that during World War II, the Nazis had planned a military space bomber aimed at attacking the U.S. Could you elaborate?

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

Bruce needs to do his homework before writing more of these, for instance he claims that CubeSats are not cataloged. Of course they are cataloged and tracked, the Satellite Catalog has all CubeSats in it. Now they do get confused with each other but they are easily tracked by radar. Also he says that ground based lasers could cause satellite fuel tanks to explode – that is hardly credible. The lasers could blind optical satellites but heating up a fuel tank enough to explode is very difficult. Generally, this tells me that Forbes is NOT the place to go for information about space.

To be more precise… Bruce is interviewing James Clay Moltz, who actually makes those easily-disproved assertions (among others in this interview) but Bruce is not able to point out that they are mistakes. We just need better sources than Mr Moltz and journalists need to be able to check what their sources claim.

Moltz has clarified his statement about cubesat tracking; however, stands by his statement on the lasers and responds: “It is a definite risk of laser use. The difference here is between low- and high-powered lasers. The latter can cut through thin-skinned tanks (and indeed are designed to do so). Low-power laser ranging equipment cannot do so, but that’s not what I was talking about here in the “weapons” category.”

I should have written more clearly myself, the clarification about CubeSats does make the interview reflect the actual situation better.

And the Air Force did fly the Airborne Laser Laboratory which did shoot down rockets in flight, so laser attacks on objects in space are possible. However they are very very difficult and likely are not a credible means of attacking most spacecraft. But this is not an appropriate forum for discussing that, we don’t have nearly enough room.

I regret the snide tone of my comments but will continue to see Forbes as not the place for in-depth information about space.

The rationale Mr. Moltz outlines for the failure of liability to come into play with the Iridium 33/Cosmos 2251 collision is wrong. Liability for collisions between two space object in orbit is fault-based and apportioned between the countries involved based upon the degree of fault of each party. It’s just like a car crash. Liability for the crash is apportioned amongst the drivers based on the degree off fault they had in causing the accident. The problem with the Iridium/Cosmos collision is that it occurred over Siberia where there was limited space situational awareness that would have helped clarify what happened and to what degree each of the parties was at fault. That Cosmos 2251 was derelict does not mean that the Russian Federation was automatically off the hook.